That's right kiddies..even Clinton can see how facts can get distorted. It's too bad the liberal mea culpa here are too stupid to see the light. Details here: http://www.brunei-online.com/bb/thu/jul24w29.htm14 responses total.
This response has been erased.
What's this? Neoconservatives falling all over themselves to praise Clinton? What about Monica, etc? What they seem not have noticed is that Clinton did NOT agree with Bush leaving those 16 words in his SotU: he just said that Rice et al ""on balance ... decided they should leave that line in the speech." Which is a true observation. It is not a comment on the act. What Clinton said that was substantive is "I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the UN ... to say (to Iraq) you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions". Get that? That there could be a regime change if Iraw did not "let these inspectors >in". But the inspectors were in, and doing their job. No neoconservatives should be crowing about Clinton's remarks, or they must be extremely stupid.
This response has been erased.
Clinton also said on LArry King that he agreed with what actions the president took. Keep in mind that he also believed Iraq had the weapons, as did many other nations of this worl, as did the United Nations.
Here is what Clinton said to Larry King: "I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying 'we probably shouldn't have said that,' " Clinton told CNN's Larry King in a phone interview Tuesday evening. "You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president," Clinton said. "I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think." Clinton was saying that what Bush said was a *mistake* and that it was *wrong* and that Bush *messed up*. That is identical to the criticism coming from many quarters of Bush's statement. That is hardly even the faintest support for Bush's claims.
Once again rcurl shows his ignorance. We aren't falling over ourselves to praise Bush you twit. We are showing that what we have been saying about WMD is correct all along. If this statement doesn't show support for our position..I don't what could. Clinton said "It's time to forget the search for WMD and be thankful we have freed an oppressed people. We need to focus our efforts on relieving tensions within Iraq". I have been making the samr statement since I started posting here. It is now being said by a liberal "hero". The point is everyone of you stupid fucks are WRONG. The most respected person in the liberal camp is parroting my message. No one said that mistakes weren't made in Iraq. We wanted to move on from there and focus on current affairs. I bet a cocksucker like you would probally hand the country back to Saddam. You have errant presuppositions. These presuppositions box you into a paradigm that only reflects facts supporting you bias. The statement I quoted was one made to Hannity and Colmes on Fox News but even the statement made to Larry King is a correct reflection of the current republican position. Quite bashing Bush and focus on what need to be done in Iraq after Saddam's fall. You are a stupid dipshit...you didn't quote everything Clinton said to King did you?.rcurl the cocksucking girl.
It's really, really amusing to hear conservatives pointing to Clinton's words as justifying their actions, after having heard them shouting about what a lying sleaze he is for the last 10 years. I agree with Clinton, though. I've never blamed Bush and his cheering squad for saying there were WMD in Iraq. There was every reason to think there were, and I was surprised as anyone when nothing turned up. They still told some pretty good stretchers, though. Like Condi Rice saying that the first "smoking gun" from Iraq might be "a mushroom cloud", and Tony Blair claiming that Iraq had chemical weapons ready to use on 45 minutes' notice. There was no reason to believe Iraq didn't have WMD, but the war was sold to the public on the grounds that Iraq was an immediate, direct threat to the United States. That clearly was a lie.
I agree in part with gull. The thread's title is misleading.
You said something that is true!
re#7: Far from a deliberate lie. First off, there is no "lie" in the state of the union words which are still true to this day. If I were a clever Iraqi dictator and I wanted to purchase yellowcake from a corrupt african vendor I might forge clever documents that proved I bought it from another place and leak them. The fact that the nigerian documents were forgeries doesn't mean that Iraq did not in fact purchase yellowcake from some other corrupt african vendor of which there are many and as they had in the past and apparently have most recently. What more evidence do you need than 9/11 that folk are actively hostile to the US? You are the kind of idiot that when bitten by one particular type of rattler is too stupid to wear high boots in the first place and presumes that all other such snakes are presumed harmless unless proven otherwise.
The scenario in question, prefaced with an "If", can be said about many nations. "If I were a corrupt Burmese dictator and....". Suggesting the scenario does not establish a whiff of even possible truth to it.
Re: #10 Ummm...yeah. And now that Jr. Bush has settled his own little family's score with Saddam, gotten our all-volunteer ground forces tarbabied but good in a place guaranteed to drive re-enlistment rates through the floor, hooked Iraq to a $Billion$ per week tap driven into America's taxpayers, demonstrated to much of the Arab world that an evil dictator may really be better than American-style "liberation", and very publicly earned a D- in the slightly-crucial subject of turning raw intelligence data into an intelligent policy, America is in a *much* better position to deal with friendly countries like N. Korea and Iran as their real (vs. "he wouldda if he couldda" Saddam-style) nuclear weapons programs enter the warhead production phases, right? I'm mostly hoping that the Dumocrats forget their usual "make us feel good about losing" and "assisted suicide" strategies in '04 and field a real candidate or two.
One wonders if Beady's wee-hours postings still make sense to him after he's recovered from the hangover.
Wu. You got me there, buttboy.
You have several choices: